Australia will keep pushing US to drop Trump tariffs after court ruling, trade minister says

The Guardian

4 days ago

Australia will continue to push Donald Trump to abandon his administration's tariff regime entirely, after a US court blocked the president's 'liberation day' tariffs from coming into effect.
The Manhattan-based court of international trade said the US constitution gives the Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other countries, and ruled that power was not superseded by the president's self-declared 'emergency' he cited to safeguard the US economy.
The Trump White House filed an appeal against the judgment minutes after it was handed down. The regime imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all Australian imports to the US. Several specific products, including steel and aluminium, are subject to higher tariff rates, up to 25%.
The Australian trade minister, Don Farrell, said the Australian government would agitate for tariffs on Australian goods to be dumped entirely.
'We will study this ruling of the US Federal Courts on reciprocal tariffs closely and note that they may be subject to further legal processes through the courts,' he said.
'The Albanese Government has been consistent in the view that these tariffs on Australian imports into the US are unjustified,' Farrell said.
'We will continue to engage and strongly advocate for the removal of tariffs.'
'The Albanese Government will always stand up for Australia's national interests, including Australian jobs and Australian industries.'
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The US court found Trump overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board tariffs on imports from countries all over the world. Trump called the tariffs, announced on 2 April, America's 'liberation day'.
'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage. That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because (federal law) does not allow it,' a three-judge panel said in the decision.
The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 13 US states.
The companies – which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments – have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business.
The lawsuit argued that the statue invoked by the president – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – does not give him the authority to unilaterally issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs.
'His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination: trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency. Nor do these trade deficits constitute an 'unusual and extraordinary threat',' it argued.
Court documents specifically cited the tariffs imposed on Australian territories where there are no people, and, hence, no commerce.
'The Liberation Day Order imposed sweeping new tariffs at rates not seen since the Great Depression – including a global 10% tariffs on nearly all countries in the world – regardless of whether they impose tariffs on United States products, the rates at which they do so, or the existence of any trade agreements governing the relationship.
'These tariffs even applied to places with no civilian population or international trade activity, such as [Australian territories] the Heard and McDonald Islands, which are inhabited only by penguins and seals.'
Australian financial analysts have warned that significant uncertainty remained around the ultimate fate of Trump's tariff regime.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Kyle Rodda, a senior financial market analyst with Capital.com in Melbourne, said the court's ruling was massive news.
'It's long been suggested that the emergency powers Trump has used to implement tariffs were unconstitutional and that the power to enact tariffs sits with Congress,' he said.
'It sets up a battle that will likely end up in the supreme court now. It's a situation fraught with danger because the administration may ignore the court's ruling, potentially placing greater strain on US institutions at a time of increased stress.'
Sean Callow, a senior analyst at ITC Markets in Sydney, said while there must be significant caution over the ruling being overturned by higher courts, 'for now the weight of money is being placed on the possibility that US courts prevent the White House from self-imposed economic damage, brightening US growth prospects and the US dollar'.
The White House and lawyers for groups that sued did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and one of Trump's lead policy advisers, rebuked the court in a brief social media post, writing: 'The judicial coup is out of control.'
At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending.
The attorney general of Oregon, Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the states' lawsuit, called Trump's tariffs unlawful, reckless and economically devastating.
'This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim,' Rayfield said in a statement.
Under US law, tariffs must typically be approved by Congress. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA, which is meant to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during a national emergency.
The law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the US or freeze their assets. Trump is the first US president to use it to impose tariffs.
AP and AAP contributed to this report